Here's where adult indulgences might clash with parental instincts to protect one's kids--do as I say, but not as I do?

Arguments against legalization say that legality is akin to promotion, that pot is a gateway drug to stronger narcotics, and the intiative may be poorly written in such a way as to conflict with federal law restricting marijuana's sale and use, removing the ability of employers to "maintain a drug-free workplace consistent with federal law." Law enforcement officers are concerned they'll lose an important tool in the larger battle to control the trafficking of illicit substances.

Those in favor include Bill Gates Sr. (yes, father of that guy) and people welcoming estimated tax benefits to the state in an amount estimated to be $11 billion over five years.

Those opposed argue that this tax on people with high incomes will open doors to state income taxes on everyone, regardless of AGI, if this measure passes. They also claim that fewer jobs will be created and the wealthy will abandon the state.

Amendment 62, Fetal Personhood: "Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and
25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person"
shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological
development of that human being."

This initiative would change the Colorado state constitution (pdf) to define personhood as beginning at conception. If passed, every pregnant woman or girl would have to carry to term -- with no exceptions for the health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. The amendment would also severely curtail stem-cell research and some forms of birth control. In-vitro fertilization would no longer be widely available.

Backers of Amendment 62 argue that life begins at conception and the state should protect the lives of its residents.

Opponents of Amendment 62 argue that abortion is legal under Roe v. Wade, as is contraception; and that women experiencing miscarriages or pregnancies that would endanger their lives (or as a result of rape or incest) would have no recourse under this constitutional amendment. The status of existing fertilized eggs held for IVF would also be in question.

UPDATED [7:06 pm PT]

The amendment is at 75% voting no, 25% voting yes, with about 3200 precincts reporting and results still coming in.

[UPDATED 11-03-10 8:28 am PT]

Defeated, 70% voting no, 30% voting yes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oklahoma [updated at 4:11 pm PT]

"Save Our State"/State Question 755, would formally adopt the existing use of federal and state law as the sole code used to determine court rulings in the state of Oklahoma. It would ban courts from relying on international law and specify that Sharia law, a set of laws based on Islamic teachings in the Quran that vary from country to country, not be used to resolve disputes.

n the history of the Oklahoma state court system, no one has ever attempted to apply sharia law to any case. Currently, in Oklahoma there are approximately 15,000 Muslims out of a total state population of 3.7 million, or .4% of the people.

Prop 106: bucks the federal mandate that Americans purchase health insurance (with means testing for subsidies to working class and middle class Americans to enable them to purchase coverage) as part of the new Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Conflicts with imposition of fines for noncompliance in the federal law. The initiative would amend the state constitution and inevitably launch a series of lawsuits contesting states' ability to make law on this matter versus the federal government. (Similar ballot initiatives are being voted on in Colorado and Oklahoma as well to amend the state constitutions.)

States could also file suit to argue that the health law violates
their 10th Amendment rights to keep powers not otherwise delegated to
the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents of the ballot amendments say the measures could complicate health care issues within the states.

Dr.
Michael Pramenko, president of the Colorado Medical Society, which
opposes the ballot initiative, said the amendment could affect any state
efforts to set up a program to expand insurance coverage. "It would
tie our hands at the state level," he said, adding that the amendment
would prevent the state from setting up its own version of the
individual mandate, independent of the federal government, in the
future.

In 2008, Prop 101, a similar initiative failed to win. Nearly two years and several millions of dollars of health industry lobbyist dollars later, the proposed constitutional amendment faces a much different voter landscape. It remains to be seen whether Arizonans want the removal of protections such as and end to pre-existing condition exclusions, inclusion of married or single children up to the age of 26, and free preventive care as provided by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act now, or if they'll elect to take their chances with unchecked rate increases under individual private insurance as is the status quo. If they choose to go it alone, they may forsake the improved aggregate buying power of the insurance exchanges set to come online in 2014.